RAJA VIDEO PARLOUR AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS . ETC.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 14-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
RAJA VIDEO PARLOUR AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS .. ETC. 
JULY 14, 1993 
[P.B. SAWANT AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
Punjab Exhibition of Films 011 Television Screel! through Video Cas-
sette Players (Regulatio11) Rules, 1980: Rule 5(3) and proviso to sub rule 3 
of Rule 11}-Applicable to TV projectors with a separate screen larger than 
A 
B 
TV screen-Maximum seating capacity flXed at 50 i"espective of the size of C 
the screen-Whether i1nposes unreasonable restriction. 
Constitutio11 of ll!dia, 1950: 
Article 19( 1 )(g)-Rule 5(3) and proviso to Rule 10(3) of Punjab Ex-
hibition of Filn1s on Television Screen through Video Cassette Players D 
(Regulation) Rules 1989-Whetlzer applies to TV projectors with a separate 
screen larger than TV scree!t--Maximum seating capacity flXed at 50 i"espec-
tive of the size of the screen-Whether imposes unreasonable restriction and 
hence violative of 
The appellants were running video parlours wherein th•Y exhibited E 
pre-recorded video cassettes of cinematograph films by a VCR/VCP and a 
video projector on a screen of 100 inches to 120 inches, with a seating 
capacity of more than 50 seats. In the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 
1952, there was no special provision for grant or licence for such public 
exhibition of films. On January 10, 1986 the Government or Punjab issued F 
executive instructions under the Punjab Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 
and Rules made thereunder and advised the District Magistrate concerned 
to issue licences to the applicants for public exhibition of films on video 
under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Accordingly, Temporary licences were 
granted to the appellants under which the seating capacity for the premises G 
used for public exhibition of films was in the range of 150-200. 
By notification. dated January 13, 1989, the President of India 
promulgated the Rules providing for regulation of the exibition of films on 
Television screen through VCPs. Suh-rule (3) of Rule 5, provided that the 
licence should be granted for a Video Cassette player in respect of a H 
149 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993} SUPP. i'S.C.R. 
A premises having seating capacity upto fifty seats only. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 
10, provided that no licence shall be granted for a bnilding under these 
rules, if snch building is worth accommodating more than fifty spectators 
at a time. The appellants filed writ petitions before the HighCourt chal-
langing the above said provisions. 
B 
The High Court held that T.V. screen was an integral part of the 
Television and that it cannot be separated out and that the television 
screen and the projector screen were fundamentally different and that 
while the Television works on the principles of electron scanning, the 
projection system works on projection of lights and that the two were 
C totally different systems for display of pictures; that though under the 
Rules, the appellants were entitled to exhibit films on television screen 
from pre-recorded video cassettes with the help of VCPs, they were not 
entitled to exhibit films with the help of projector on a projection screen; 
and that the said restriction on seating capacity is a reasonably restriction 
having regard to the size of the. television screen, health of the persons 
D visiting the parlours and public safety. 
Being Aggrieved by the jndgement of the High Court, the appellants 
prefered the present appeal, contending that nnder Section 5 of the Act the 
power of the licensing authority to grant the licence could be restricted by 
1"11les and since the Rules were not applicable in the instant case, there was 
E no restriction on the power of the licensing authority to grant a licence and 
that the grant/renewal of the licence has been wrongly refused by the 
licensing authorities. 
F 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. A TV Projector with a separate screen operates as a TV 
receiver and performs the same functions as a TV and exhibition of 
pre-recorded cassettes through VCR/VCP and a TV Projector would 
amount to exhibition of moving pictures or series of pictures given by 
means of VCR/VCP through the medium ,1f television. (155-H; 156-A] 
Mis. Shankar Video & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (1993] 3 
sec 696, relied on. 
1.2. The words 'television screen' in the Punjab Exhibition of Films on 
Television Screen through Video Cassette Player (Regulation) Rules, 1989 
H could not be construed to mean the screen of a television set. There is no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.